Factors affecting foot posture in young adults: a cross sectional study.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: Age, Body Mass Index (BMI) and flexibility are factors affecting foot posture, which is poorly understood in young adults. The objective of this study is to discover the relationships among these factors. METHODS: 252 healthy participants (106 males, 146 females) between the ages of 18 and 25 were selected. BMI and the Foot Posture Index - 6 item version (FPI-6) were assessed, a Beighton score was obtained for each participant, and a lunge test was conducted. RESULTS: Pronated feet (indicated by an FPI-6 score of 6+ (had a weak positive correlation with Beighton score (r=0.25, p= 0.05, 95% CI [0.01 to 0.47]) and a weak negative correlation with BMI (r=0.31, p = 0.01, 95% CI [-0.52 to -0.07]). Females had a higher prevalence of pronated feet (81.75%) than males (18.75%). CONCLUSION: There is a mild relationship between ligament laxity and foot pronation, and females are more prone to have pronated feet than males. No correlation was found between body weight and pronated feet.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".